Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 7:09 pm Post subject: Feminism because why not make a thread for it?

So. Feminism keeps popping up over the forums recently. We seem to have an interesting mix of guys that have studied gender theory, women who find it interesting and relevant to their lives (and maybe some that have also taken a few courses on it? I took one, eons ago.), and a smattering of the hopelessly ignorant we might be able to lure in and taunt mercilessly.

I propose a starting point:

The Pleasures thread exploded with talk of Dworkin and how she's either misunderstood or crazy.

Willem wrote:

I honestly get why she'd say such things. You're utterly powerless and words are your only weapons. But the statement that all sex is rape isn't that crazy. Though it's a really crude way of saying it's always coerced.

I thought this was really interesting, but I haven't really read up on Dworkin and I'd much rather learn about it by listening to Sinfester's bitch about it. Weirdly, I retain things better this way.

Joined: 09 Jul 2006Posts: 9718Location: I have to be somewhere? ::runs around frantically::

Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 7:32 pm Post subject: Re: Feminism because why not make a thread for it?

Samsally wrote:

I'd much rather learn about it by listening to Sinfester's bitch about it. Weirdly, I retain things better this way.

THIS IS SO TRUE!!!_________________Before God created Las he pondered on all the aspects a woman might have, he considered which ones would look good super-inflated and which ones to leave alone.
After much deliberation he gave her a giant comfort zone. - Michael

Oh, great, I've been wanting an excuse to bring up Dworkin again. I'll just start by saying that if Dworkin considered herself feminist, and she apparently had (and still has) a large following, then I'm not surprised when people say feminism has been hijacked. Dworkin was possibly one of the biggest misandrists alive. I mean, to reiterate, seduction was no different than rape and marriage was an invitation to rape and slavery (to women, of course). That's the small stuff. She then goes on how women cannot be free until all men are dead (or she says 'manhood', which I assume is exactly what it means, and how it will 'perish' when 'ravaged feminity (rape) no longer sustain it'. yeah.) and then that wishing for equality with men is akin to becoming the rich, the rapist and the murderer. (Which we'll assume with the inclusion of rapists and murderers are all bad.) It's weird, though, because I can't make out if she plain spells out her misandry or if she's rooting for it to happen. Logically it'd mean you'd be top dog, but er...

You can listen to one of her speeches on pornography here, which is just creepy.

I mean, even Ann Coulter is considered a feminist icon. Ann fucking Coulter. That right there is proof that feminism -- or at least a large part of it -- has gone off the deep end. So to cut out the middle man, I just call myself humanist now. (Which, ironically, is also what Hugh Hefner did.)

I'm still reading up on Dworkin, so I'm not ready to comment on that yet, but the video is pretty easy.

The YouTube commenters seem to make the same connection that you make in your question - that is, "asking a woman out for coffee." I heard it as, "asking a woman in for coffee," which, whether we (men) like it or intend it, has certain connotations. Asking a woman out for coffee is 100% a-okay. Asking a stranger - even an interesting one - back to your hotel room... yeah, I can sympathize with how that might creep a woman out.

I also find it interesting how some of the people commenting labelled it as sexist because the dyad is a male and a female, saying that she would react differently if it were a guy asking another guy to come to his hotel room to talk, or a woman asking another woman... even though those combinations have entirely different social connotations. It's like saying a woman is sexist because she's offended when a man slaps her on the ass without her consent because she isn't offended every time two guys on a sports team slap each other on the ass. You have to modify your own behavior with respect to patriarchy, too. It's not just a problem for women. You may ask a strange woman to walk down a dark alley with you with a totally egalitarian intent, but just like other forms of communication it's not merely your intent that matters (and, in fact, it's less than half of the equation) but how that message is transmitted and understood by the recipient. If you're the biggest feminist on the face of the earth in your heart but you're always trying to get women to walk down dark alleys with you, people will treat you like a creep, because that's the image you portray. Similarly, if you ask a woman you don't know to come back to your hotel room at 4am, no one should be surprised she finds that creepy._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. I’ll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

After Jackie O, a douchebag shock jock, claimed she doesn't consider herself a feminist, there have been some really great articles asking why, and trying to remind people that the central tenants of feminism are that women and men should be treated equally. It's not about man-hate its about woman-love.

So I'm really glad Guest could pop up and let us all know that the majority of feminists are insane 'minsandrists', because my experience has been that I have never met or talked to a man-hatin' feminazi in my entire life and while I don't doubt they exist in small pockets, its a pretty big call to say that feminism, as an entire way of thinking, has gone off the deep end.

anyway, Guest, good luck being remotely coherent and not coming across like a massive douche. It's not going so well for you so far, but you know, good luck.

After Jackie O, a douchebag shock jock, claimed she doesn't consider herself a feminist, there have been some really great articles asking why, and trying to remind people that the central tenants of feminism are that women and men should be treated equally. It's not about man-hate its about woman-love.

So I'm really glad Guest could pop up and let us all know that the majority of feminists are insane 'minsandrists', because my experience has been that I have never met or talked to a man-hatin' feminazi in my entire life and while I don't doubt they exist in small pockets, its a pretty big call to say that feminism, as an entire way of thinking, has gone off the deep end.

anyway, Guest, good luck being remotely coherent and not coming across like a massive douche. It's not going so well for you so far, but you know, good luck.

So I'm really glad Guest could pop up and let us all know that the majority of feminists are insane 'minsandrists', because my experience has been that I have never met or talked to a man-hatin' feminazi in my entire life and while I don't doubt they exist in small pockets, its a pretty big call to say that feminism, as an entire way of thinking, has gone off the deep end.

anyway, Guest, good luck being remotely coherent and not coming across like a massive douche. It's not going so well for you so far, but you know, good luck.

We need to stop meeting like this. People might starting getting ideas. Also, now you really are just a shit-stirrer, Dennis. Not that there really was any doubt from the beginning, but you really are just a cunt, aren't you? I can't help but feel your girlfriend wouldn't be slightly wary if she knew you were off harassing random people on forums during the late hours, other than the fact you being an intolerable minge. Fitting, since we're all about feminism in here. Pick up a chair. I also can't help but feel you're taking Sally's mental picture too seriously.

Anyway, you're confused, again. I never said the majority of feminists are misandrists. I never said the majority of feminists anything. I said Andrea Dworkin had a large following and Dworkin was a serious misandrist, hence why I said I understand why some people would have a certain apprehension towards feminism. Or 'hijacked', I did use the word hijacked. Personally that's what I, myself, think. Then Ann Coulter has a large following, who considers her a strong feminist icon (the word 'icon' is used predominantly in the columns to praise her) and when Ann Coulter of all people is a symbol for female equality, then something is very wrong. And yes, I felt I needed to point out the irony of Hugh Hefner. He is a feminist after all._________________"Apparently so. But suppose you throw a coin enough times, suppose one day. . . it lands on its edge."
--Amy Hennig, Soul Reaver 2

Seriously, Dennis. Can't I just have a fucking conversation without you rearing your ugly head? Why can't I have a conversation about feminism, you fuck? Feminism! I'm talking about you rearing your ugly head whenever I post, if only you would rear your head out of your fucking arse in the process. I don't want your shit. I don't need your shit! Take your shit elsewhere! Go! Now!

Fuck.

edit: in case this wasn't clear enough, it's a not too subtle way of telling you to fuck off, Dennis. Because you're a douche.

Anyway, I'm going to link to my last post in the Pleasures thread and respond to a few replies I didn't see in there. So, link.

Snorri wrote:

By what reasoning does consent become meaningless in the context of patriarchy that does not hold for non-patriarchal systems?

Because "there is no way of knowing if she truly made the decision or was forced into it by a way of thinking" always hold true.

But that's just a brief aside. Both consent and rape explicitly require agency, because rape is the absence of consent and does not make sense without the existence of consent, to deny one denies the other.

Hmm, maybe I should have said 'comparably meaningless'. Because of cultural indoctrination - which teaches women that sometimes no means yes, that to make her partner happy she has to do things she doesn't want, etc - a patriarchic society adds a specific extra layer of issues which take away from the meaning of consent. But as you said, there is no way to ever know if your decision is 'your own', even in a non-patriarchy. There's always something that's 'tainting' your agency. But if you were to compare just the patriarchy and the non-patriarchy on this specific issue, you can say that consent in a non-patriarchy would be more meaningful because it doesn't have the issues I mentioned. But it's not perfect either.

And I'm not sure I get the last bit you said. Maybe I was a bit too strong in denying the existence of agency - but I am saying it plays a far less important role than is usually allotted to it. But consent exists, I even did my whole small letter big letter consent thing.

Samsally wrote:

So do women just never want sex, ever? Because 1) not true, or I wouldn't be such a special snowflake and 2) isn't that kind of a sexist thing to assume to begin with?

No, they absolutely want sex. It's just impossible to know when exactly in a patriarchy. It's kind of like Shrödinger's Libido or something.

But the same holds true for men, if you follow this line of reasoning, but that's another issue.

Now, The Bad Post:

Quote:

I'll just start by saying that if Dworkin considered herself feminist, and she apparently had (and still has) a large following, then I'm not surprised when people say feminism has been hijacked.

Those people are idiots. Feminism isn't just a single monolith of an ideology. There are several waves of feminism and enough different groups within it. And they all disagree with each other. (and this on a very wide range of subjects, like pornography, prostitution, abortion, etc) Saying that one group (which most people don't even understand) discredits the entire movement is insulting - to say the least.

Quote:

misandrists

While it may be the most fitting as it will ever be due to the subject of this conversation, but don't use this word again when discussing feminism. It's laughable.

Quote:

seduction was no different than rape

“Seduction is often difficult to distinguish from rape. In seduction, the rapist often bothers to buy a bottle of wine.”

Slight difference. Do I really have to link you to some MRA-text?

Quote:

marriage was an invitation to rape and slavery (to women, of course)

"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership."

This isn't nearly as controversial if you look at the origins and the history of marriage.

Quote:

She then goes on how women cannot be free until all men are dead (or she says 'manhood', which I assume is exactly what it means, and how it will 'perish' when 'ravaged feminity (rape) no longer sustain it'. yeah.)

"Only when manhood is dead -- and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it -- only then will we know what it is to be free."
Manhood is 'the patriarchy'. That's pretty uncontroversial feminism101 stuff right there. She's not talking about literally killing all men.

Quote:

and then that wishing for equality with men is akin to becoming the rich, the rapist and the murderer. (Which we'll assume with the inclusion of rapists and murderers are all bad.)

"A commitment to sexual equality with males is a commitment to becoming the rich instead of the poor, the rapist instead of the raped, the murderer instead of the murdered."

What she means here is that to demand sexual equality isn't enough. She's calling for the end of patriarchy, so that actual, full equality can be reached. This is, again, not controversial.

Really, most of these statements are suddenly totally uncontroversial when I - y'know - actually put the quote in there instead and when I give a little explanation.

Quote:

I mean, even Ann Coulter is considered a feminist icon. Ann fucking Coulter. That right there is proof that feminism -- or at least a large part of it -- has gone off the deep end. So to cut out the middle man, I just call myself humanist now. (Which, ironically, is also what Hugh Hefner did.)

As I said, feminism is a very, very large and very, very diverse group. No doubt that you'll find some small group that thinks that Coulter is a feminist icon, but obviously most groups (including myself) would disagree. It doesn't matter though. Feminism is very much legitimate and alive today. To call oneself humanist is either showing yourself as ignorant on the subject or showing your 'what about the mens!' privilege. Or both.

Either your ignorance drives you to think that feminism is somehow not legitimate anymore or you feel the need to explicitly cram men into what is fundamentally a women's movement. (though obviously this movement already includes issues pertinent to men - the patriarchy hurts men as well)

edit: also, guest, you never did respond to my last Big Post._________________attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose

Last edited by Willem on Tue May 15, 2012 5:13 am; edited 1 time in total

also since we are in a thread about feminism, can we avoid the gendered slurs? tia_________________attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose